First Drive

What is it?

This is it the moment we’ll find out if we were right. Right to have been boring on about manufacturers not increasing power and speed, but reducing grip and weight, in order that we have more fun. This is the most significant embodiment yet of the idea. This is the Caterham Seven 160.

We’ve talked about it a lot already, and there are many things in the confirmed spec worth noting. Cubic capacity is just 660cc, in the form of a mildly blown Suzuki (car, not bike) engine. Suzuki installs it into various Kei cars and the like, and in rear-drive form in little delivery trucks (think Bedford Rascal a few generations on) it mates it to a five-speed manual gearbox with a live rear axle.

Caterham has bought the whole unit as a job lot, stopping to increase power from its standard 64bhp to 80bhp, made at 7000rpm, before slotting it into a Seven’s chassis.

In taking the drivetrain whole, the Caterham 160 utilises drum rear brakes too, and some 4.5J x 14in steel wheels that have a different stud pattern to other Sevens: thus making the option of bigger rubber impossible. Tyres are of just 155mm cross section, in 65 per cent profile. A sticky compound? Er, no. They are Avon ZT5s and cost less than £40 a corner.

All up, weight is just 490kg. The entry price is £14,995 in component form, £17,995 turnkey.

Like the old Caterham Classic you might remember, standard equipment is thin. Not as thin as it was: the only gauge fitted as standard to the Classic in the early 90s was a speedometer. These days you get a full complement.

But, stock, the 160’s aluminium body panels are left bare, the plastic ones (nose and all four wings) offered in just four basic colours. There are adjustable cloth seats, inertia-reel belts and a Moto-Lita steering wheel (our test car’s Momo, like the screen, is an option). And that’s it. At least you get a rev counter. There’s a payoff in that kerb weight is a claimed 490kg.

That’s not a lot for even a modest output like 80bhp to propel, so Caterham claims the 160 has a 0-60mph time of 6.5sec, and that it’ll run out of puff at 100mph.

What's it like?

If you’re familiar with Sevens, your immediate thoughts will not be about how fast it is (or isn’t), but how soft it feels.

Soft of everything: the clutch is light, the gearshift, though short and positive, lacks the outright precision of Caterham’s other ‘boxes and the steering is lighter at manoeuvring speeds; the rack’s the same, weight and tyres provide the difference. And, by gum, this car rides.

Curious thing to be thinking about in a Seven, I know, but the way it the body is immune from potholes and bumps is truly remarkable for a car so small and light, and with a solid rear axle. It’s very easy to live with, too. The turning circle is great, Sevens are tiny, visibility is (obviously) world class and those generous tyre sidewalls mean manoeuvring in rough car parks or onto kerbs is concern-free. That, plus watching the skinny wheels bob up and down, especially with this colour bodywork, puts you in mind of a classic car.

There’s something of a classic about the way the engine makes its power, too. Not because it’s an intractable git who hates the cold or full throttle from idle, of course: it’s as impeccably mannered as any new car. But the best of the delivery comes through the mid-range. It’ll pull from 1500rpm but when it’s beyond 2000 and the turbo starts spooling, until about 5000rpm (there’s very little lag in the middle), sees it at its best.

It gets quicker beyond 5000 but general mechanical racket overtakes the peashooter exhaust’s parp and the archetypal triple thrum at that point. You have to be committed to stay in that rev range, but to enjoy brisk progress (though there’s loads to enjoy at lower efforts too) it’s a necessity. At one end of its model line-up, Caterham has the 620R, whose first gear will take it to the high side of 60mph. Here, it has a car whose limiter (around 7750rpm) in second gear arrives just after the speedo flashes past 40mph.

That’s fine, by the way. The 160, despite its relaxed low-speed demeanour, is a sports car after all, and if you want a sports car, you should be prepared to work for it.

You’ll find it’s bundles of fun if you do. The steering is deliciously lucid, adding weight and feel in beautifully linear fashion as you increase cornering force. The 160 feels more agile than all other new Sevens, as well it might, but still, on softer suspension, leans into corners and settles quickly on its outside tyres.

In the dry, in any gear, you can then hammer down the throttle, no danger, even though the tyres are pretty ordinary. With no limited slip differential, the most drama you’ll find is all tyres squealing and an inside rear threatening to spin. It feels like you’re going fast, but the fact is you can find these limits easily on the road. If you then exit said corner with throttle pinned, a glance at the speedo usually shows a number lower than you expect.

What the Seven’s less interested in (in the dry, at least), is indulging in ridiculous, churlish, pointless, stupid, hateful powerslides – of the sort we like. It won’t do it in the way its brethren do (or it does in the wet), on power alone. Finding the cheapest, crummiest rear tyres you can and overinflating them would probably do it. Most modern rubber – even modestly sized and unsticky – is too good for 80bhp. They make the 160 feel like a great friend who goes home just when you want him to stay out until the pubs close.

Should I buy one?

Sure. You’ll be buying something very lovely indeed. Just make sure you won’t crave more power on a circuit: what’s surprised us a bit, given the talk, is how capable and sensible the Seven 160 still feels.

If you want to get it sliding, you need to give it a big ‘send’, which takes space and/or commitment. Then it’ll happily slip foursquare for a bit, like an historic racer, before normal service is quickly resumed.

Given normal service is being one of the most agile and engaging sports cars on the planet, that’s fine by us.

Join the debate

Seems a lot of compromises to go to, and doesnt seem to allow the user to be able to carry out many upgrades to the running gear, would it not have been simpler to just buy in Fords 1.0 ecoboost engine, that is capable of offering far more power if required, without resorting to the primitive drive train.

Thanks for the info! The classic 7 I drove had Ital live axle. -I think it was the heaviest component at the rear of the seven.

Though the classic 7 handled brilliantly over the smooth roads, it was almost scary if you hit a pot hole in the middle of a fast corner. The heavy live axle will get airborne and the rear tires will end up landing 10 inch off the course.

I hope this live axle unit from Jimny would be a better and lighter unit..

I did a Caterham Slalom experience at Brands Hatch (highly recommended - being encouraged to thrash someone else's car is so much fun and it was great value) and was surprised that even with 140bhp, soft compound front tyres and hard compound rear tyres the little Seven resisted oversteer incredibly well. You had to really provoke it to get the back out. So this 160 won't really be suited to powersliding but it sounds brilliantly set up for a B road blast. The steering and suspension sound superb.

the old live 7 used a ford axle, from an escort (i think), and as such was far too heavy, but no different to anything else available. this axle isn't, and isn't, hence the report saying that it goes properly.

the 1.0 ecoboost has a cast iron block so it weighs pretty much the same as the 1.6 (aluminium block), and as such really is the wrong engine for a 7.

i've been waiting for this car for years!! a 7 was always "twice the fun of a ferrari, at half the speed", and that seems to have been forgotten a bit. this is all about feel and physics, and not loosing your license.

My experience of a live axled 7 with one of the first Academy cars was remarkably positive . In my case it used a Marina axle which was indeed very heavy. Despite that - and seeming to defy the laws of physics - it rode remarkably well and, dare I say it, actually felt quite sophisticated (!!) provided you didn't set the rear dampers too hard. Nor did it have the lack of directional stability that some comments seem to suggest. Having owned both a Europa before and an Elise since I have some elevated benchmarks to compare it with. I dismissed the 7 without even driving it when I bought the Europa - you live and learn! In the case of the 7 appearances couldn't be more deceptive.

Caterham have used both A frames and watts linkages for lateral location. I wonder if Caterham are now using a simpler - and less geometrically satisfactory method. Nearly any other method of lateral location - such as a Panhard rod - will produce some rear wheel steering.